Archer-Daniels-Midland vs Darling Ingredients
ADM and DAR side by side, both in food and kindred products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ADM and DAR compare
Archer-Daniels-Midland is the larger company, worth 4.2 times as much as Darling Ingredients ($37.1B against $8.8B).
On earnings, Darling Ingredients is cheaper: it trades at 15.0× trailing earnings, against 21.1× for Archer-Daniels-Midland.
Darling Ingredients grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.9% versus −0.82% for Archer-Daniels-Midland).
Darling Ingredients keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.1% compared with 2.2% at Archer-Daniels-Midland.
Archer-Daniels-Midland pays a dividend yielding 2.7%; Darling Ingredients does not pay one.
Darling Ingredients scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 12 for Archer-Daniels-Midland), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ADM | DAR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $37.1B | $8.8B |
| Share price | $76.91 | $55.73 |
| Change, 1 year | 27.1% | 66.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 19.3% | −34.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.40 | 0.62 |
| Employees | 41K | 15K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.1× | 15.0× (better) |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 1.3× |
| P/B | – | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.4× | 8.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 22.1× | – |
| FCF yield | 4.5% | – |
| Fair value | $72.72 | $71.44 |
| Margin of safety | −5.8% | 22.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.82% | 14.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 11.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 61.1% | 468% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 60.1% | 462% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.7% (better) | −26.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 6.9% | 26.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | – | 14.5% |
| Net margin | 2.2% | 9.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.0% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 12.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 8.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.75 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.79 (better) | 2.57 |
| Interest coverage | – | 4.3× |
| Current ratio | 1.39 | 1.56 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.04 (better) | 2.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.7% | – |
| Payout ratio | 56.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.80% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.7% (better) | 0.80% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.5% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 0.75% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.6M | −$5.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | 3.5% |
Go deeper
- ADM stock overview
- ADM income statement
- ADM valuation and score
- DAR stock overview
- DAR income statement
- DAR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.